Don't Ask, Don't Tell
This argument is about the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell rule that the military has. The rule bans "openly" gay or lesbian men and women from serving in the military. In 2004, Maj Margaret Witt was discharged from the Air Force under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell rule when her superiors learned about her relationship with a civilian women. Maj Witt sued to get her job back. The Federal Court ruled Maj's discharge to be unconstitional and that it violates her rights. The government lawyers asked judge Philips to grant them resonable time to consider her intent. The Justice Department wrote to judge Philips, "A court should not compel the executive to implement an immediate cessation of the 17-year policy without regard for any effect such an abrupt change might have on the military's option, particularly at a time when the military is engaged in combat operations around the globe".
This argument by the government is valid where Witt was discharged from the military on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. The policy has been in place for 17 years where it hasnt been a problem before. It could be that the gays and lesbian followed the policy or that there has never been any gays and lesbians serving in the military. What ever the case is, the policy has stood strong for 17 years which allows the military to discharge "openly" gays and lesbians.
The judge has a invalid arguument becuase he believes Witt should get her job back but the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy says openly gays and lesbians cant serve in the military and Witt was having an open relationship with a civilian women. The Judge based his descion on constitutional rights rather the the policy of the military. The policy must be constitutional if it has stood for 17 years. I believe the argument of the Judge is a Accident because the judge is trying to use constitutional right in a case that has a standing policy.
premise 1: Maj Margaret Witt was discharged from the Miltary in 2004 under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.
Premise 2: Maj's superiors learned of her relationship with a civilian.
Premise 3: Maj Witt was legally discharged from the military under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy after her superiors learned about he open relationship with a civilian woman.
Conclusion: Allowing openly gay and lesbian men and women serve in the military violates the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, Therefor Maj Witt was discharged from the Air Force.
This argument by the government is valid where Witt was discharged from the military on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. The policy has been in place for 17 years where it hasnt been a problem before. It could be that the gays and lesbian followed the policy or that there has never been any gays and lesbians serving in the military. What ever the case is, the policy has stood strong for 17 years which allows the military to discharge "openly" gays and lesbians.
The judge has a invalid arguument becuase he believes Witt should get her job back but the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy says openly gays and lesbians cant serve in the military and Witt was having an open relationship with a civilian women. The Judge based his descion on constitutional rights rather the the policy of the military. The policy must be constitutional if it has stood for 17 years. I believe the argument of the Judge is a Accident because the judge is trying to use constitutional right in a case that has a standing policy.
premise 1: Maj Margaret Witt was discharged from the Miltary in 2004 under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.
Premise 2: Maj's superiors learned of her relationship with a civilian.
Premise 3: Maj Witt was legally discharged from the military under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy after her superiors learned about he open relationship with a civilian woman.
Conclusion: Allowing openly gay and lesbian men and women serve in the military violates the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, Therefor Maj Witt was discharged from the Air Force.
No comments:
Post a Comment